When developing and writing about characters, I find myself conflicted about how bad to make the bad guy. Let’s distance ourselves a level and call the character the antagonist.
The antagonist’s role provides tension, scary moments, and characteristics that give a reader a chance to root for the protagonist’s success in whatever challenges they encounter.
Lately, the lines between “good” and “bad” have blurred. Did the antagonist have a childhood filled with mistreatment? Did they become the bully’s preferred target? Did they become a bully because they needed to defend themselves?
Does the protagonist have moments of self-doubt, difficulty in persisting against odds, and a habit that makes them their own worst enemy?
No one, person or character, is 100% good or bad. When writing about Will, the handsome hero who treated Louisa horribly when they first met, Will was as arrogant and self-centered as I could make him. He was redeemable because he had his best friend, Joe, who called him on his offenses. If he could have such a generous and kind friend as Joe, he couldn’t be all bad, could he?
On the flip side, Louisa is generous, kind to her friend Sophie, generous and patient with her teasing brother, and dedicated to success in school. She is not cutthroat as she challenges herself to be valedictorian. After all, she’s in the academic challenge with her best friend, Sophie. But even such a positive person as Louisa has moments when she is very human. Will infuriates her with his rudeness. She’s upset that her injury (slight spoiler) is not healing as fast as she hoped for.
Readers have told me they love Louisa’s positive nature. Readers have also commented that they could swoon over Will, who was not a particularly “nice” character. He’s good-looking, smart, and can be unkind and dismissive of people. He was of Louisa, initially.
Compare Will with the character Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind. Rhett is reprehensible. A womanizer, gambler, and not “good” as a person for his time. However, he was in love with Scarlett O’Hara and married her. When their daughter died, he was heartbroken. He was the character whom we felt for because Scarlett was selfish and uncaring.
Will is not the flamboyant character that Rhett was. Rhett crusaded for causes he believed in and changed because he truly loved Scarlett and their child.
Will does change. He finds in his relationship with Louisa someone who trusts him and sees the good in him. He also, on his own, chose impoverished cacao bean workers to befriend and assist in their efforts to make a living. He helped the cacao producers, but also his family with another viable product. He wanted everyone to benefit.
I admit to favoring rascals in my film and book preferences. One of my favorite film characters is Paul Newman’s portrayal of Ben Quick, a rascal who arrives in Mississippi and upends a patriarchal society with his quick wit and clever reading of motives. He also oozes sexuality.
The upshot of these examples, reminds me of how sometimes you want to root for the “bad” guy (not always a guy, anymore…) who’s not always so bad.
Will’s not good when we first meet him. Readers will find he becomes admirable as the books progress, but he’s not perfect, either. Does he ooze sexuality? Sometimes. You can’t see me smiling with a wicked twist of my lips, but I think flawed characters are the most fun. That certainly does upend the sense of who’s the antagonist and who’s the protagonist.
Good? Bad? It’s all a matter of degree. Just don’t end a romance without Happily Ever After! (Or Happily for Now.)